AT&T Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Regulations for Wireless Industry

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/22/atandt-weighs-in-against-net-neutrality-regulations-for-wireless-industry/)

CNET reports (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10357806-266.html) that AT&T and other wireless carriers and wireless trade associations are expressing concern over recent comments from U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski regarding his support for "Net neutrality", fearing that the current focus on wired Internet service will be expanded to included wireless networks.

The principles of Net neutrality include the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not be allowed to prevent users from accessing any particular sort of Internet content on their systems, although certain "network management" practices, which must be made public, can be employed. While wired ISPs have agreed to such regulations, wireless ISPs have expressed serious concerns over the effect such regulation could have on the limited spectrum available for wireless data transmission."AT&T has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has conducted its business accordingly," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, said in a statement. "We were also early supporters of the FCC's current four broadband principles and their case-by-case application to wired networks."

But Cicconi went on to say that the principles and new legislation should not apply to the wireless market.

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services," he said.

He argues that wireless networks differ from wireline broadband networks because bandwidth is more limited on a wireless network. And he said that imposing new rules on how carriers operate their wireless networks would stifle investment.AT&T has in the past expressed concern over the burden certain Internet content could place on its cellular network, and in fact cited those concerns in noting its role (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/05/12/atandt-releases-statement-on-lack-of-3g-streaming-for-upcoming-slingplayer-mobile/) in the decision to keep video streaming on the high-profile SlingPlayer Mobile iPhone application limited to Wi-Fi-only. AT&T also received some scrutiny (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/31/fcc-investigating-apples-rejection-of-google-voice-iphone-application/) after Apple rejected (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/28/apple-rejects-official-google-voice-iphone-application/) an official Google Voice iPhone application, although the company has denied in a statement to the FCC that it was even consulted during the approval process for the application.

Article Link: AT&T Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Regulations for Wireless Industry (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/22/atandt-weighs-in-against-net-neutrality-regulations-for-wireless-industry/)

[themoonisdown09]

I actually have to agree with AT&T on the point that wireless networks don't have the same bandwidth as wired networks.

I want to be able to make a phone call on my iPhone without having problems because people are streaming TV to their phones and are hogging all the bandwidth.

[jav6454]

On a Wireles Cellular level, I agree. On a wired (U-Verse, DSL) level, AT&T can suck it.

[KnightWRX]

I actually have to agree with AT&T on the point that wireless networks don't have the same bandwidth as wired networks.

I want to be able to make a phone call on my iPhone without having problems because people are streaming TV to their phones and are hogging all the bandwidth.

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

[flpatriot]

If, as AT&T claims, wireless services are *so* competitive in the US, then why are mobile broadband prices *exactly the same* on all major carriers? It doesn’t matter if you go to AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or, Verizon; the top-tier data plan is $59.99/month for 5GB of data. IIRC, Sprint *used* to offer 'unlimited' with no fine print, but they went to 'unlimited'/5GB within the past few years. That just seems a little too coincidental.

Let’s just hope these same ridiculous prices don’t affect LTE & WiMAX, too.

[ouimetnick]

Just give is sling player over the cellular network. Also give us skype over the cellular data network. AT&T needs to invest more cash in their network, and so does everybody else. They should be as strong as the wired networks.

[RangerXML]

Screw wireless, this would force them to actually update their networks.

On the other hand, they could be real jerks and let networks slow to a crawl and then just sit on their hands and beg the gov't for money and blame the FCC.

[DipDog3]

I am sure they did.

AT&T just wants to walk the fine line of squeezing every last penny out of customers while providing as little service as possible.

[zombitronic]

How much would it cost the wireless carriers to enhance their infrastructure?

How much do a few execs at these companies make each year?

[kurzz]

Surprise! AT&T is evil.

[RazHyena]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

What makes you think otherwise?

Enlighten us, oh wise one. :rolleyes:

[kryptonianjorel]

These rules need to apply to all ISPs regardless of their medium. It is absolutely outrageous the prices that wireless providers charge for their mediocre service.

Without government mandates, whats the point of upgrading the network and actually innovating? The big 4 carriers all charge the same for their data packages, and limit to 5 GB a month for $60! Why improve if your rivals aren't? Sure, LTE and WiMax are coming, but they're years away (a decade or more for "nation-wide" coverage), and the speeds and connections will all be comparable to the competitors, and will cost the same.

No new start-up company can come around them and try to offer something new and better, because it costs billions upon billions to build an infrastructure, let alone buy the wireless airwaves. You can't have a free market in this situation, and therefore free market rules can not apply, and the big 4 must be held to the neutrality standards

[Rodimus Prime]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

well given the fact that calls seem to be dropping more often in areas with huge number of iPhones in it seem to give way to that fact. Not areas that have had population growth but just smart phone users gives way to that fact.

Or the fact that if you read though some articles you have AT&T saying some of the things they are being forced to do is take bandwith away from voice to data/Texting then back the other way to keep up with demand.

The next thing is the fact that 4G voice since everything over data like internet is that as well.

I agree with ATT on wireless should not be forced the same way. The current system is already stuggling across the board keep up with data demand much less growth in it.

Best place to see this in effect is go to college campuses. They have largest number of new smart phones with out change in the population. Call drops are becoming an issue there.

[jbellanca]

Wow, there's a shock. AT&T's against wireless net neutrality. Never saw that coming. (Just a bit of sarcasm there.)

[jav6454]

Do any of you know the dynamics of a wireless spectrum to be even talking and saying "screw AT&T's wireless"?

Believe me when I tell you, waves in the wireless sector IS NOT UNLIMITED. You will eventually run out of 850MHz connections by trying to cram as many data or voice transfers as possible. So, even though the infrastructure might support it in theory, in real world, it wouldn't work, plain and simple. (not unless you know how to send super fast data in 1 Hertz frequencies instead of 2-10 KHertz frequencies)

In this case, I have to agree with AT&T. Oh, and if you are wondering, simple, Physics and Electric Engineering goes a long way in these things.

[infiniteentropy]

AT&T has to look after their shareholders' best interests, so this is of course going to be their position. Voip over their data network in something like the iPhone has to be pretty scary, especially given things like voipstunt offering unlimited free calls up to one minute long (accessible via Fring on the iPhone).

They should spend less time and money fretting over the inevitable and lobbying to make congress-critters vote their way, and should be building their networks stronger and expanding them. The problem is that the USA is a very big landmass so covering it completely is going to be prohibitive cost-wise. I live about a half hour outside a major metro area and I'm stuck on EDGE and unable to get any broadband except satellite coverage. They could very quickly blanket semi-metro areas with high-speed wireless (there are towers aplenty where I'm at) and chow down all the low-hanging fruit (money) as people would flock to them in droves.

<troll>But then again, I'm sure the execs have more yachts to buy, and can't be bothered spending money expanding and perfecting the network that brings them so much money...</troll> :rolleyes:

[Fluffy Bunny]

All AT&T needs to do, along with all the other wireless carriers, is stop all flat rate data plans and start charging per MB. It's not rocket science.

[ravenvii]

All I got to say is **** you, AT&T. Ooh your poor network couldn't take it? Make it so it could!

[JAT]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

Wait, I thought the government was "the system". So, they are the rebels, now?

Wonder what the "truth" will be tomorrow.

[kryptonianjorel]

What makes you think otherwise?

Enlighten us, oh wise one. :rolleyes:

Well for Verizon, voice goes on the 850 MHz band while data is on the 1900MHz band (or vice versa, can't remember which for sure)

[maxijazz]

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services," he said.

He argues that wireless networks differ from wireline broadband networks because bandwidth is more limited on a wireless network. And he said that imposing new rules on how carriers operate their wireless networks would stifle investment.

I don't see connection between competitiveness and net neutrality.
Perhaps we should allow slavery in competitive markets (i.e automakers industry)?
I don't see how bandwidth limits relate to neutrality too.
I don't remember any censorship in past when internet was dialed-in.

The bandwidth throttling and filtering is supposed to stifle competition as it is easier/cheaper to apply one filter more then upgrade router or tower's appliance.

[ChrisA]

I actually have to agree with AT&T on the point that wireless networks don't have the same bandwidth as wired networks.

I want to be able to make a phone call on my iPhone without having problems because people are streaming TV to their phones and are hogging all the bandwidth.

You are right. So what they can do is limit the per connection bandwidth and prioritize voice over other protocols. Those things would be allowed if they were made public.

They could rig it so that video streaming packets would go out on the air only after a phone call was allowed to "jump the queue".

But what AT&T really wants to the ability to limit (prohibit) you from using a competive service. They want to be the ONLY ones allowed to sell you content on their network.

Who provides the content is the key here. the concept of nuetrality maens AT&T sells only bandwidth (managed with a public prioritization system). They want more, they want to sell content too and lock outers out from selling it.

[jav6454]

I don't see connection between competitiveness and net neutrality.
Perhaps we should allow slavery in competitive markets (i.e automakers industry)?
I don't see how bandwidth limits relate to neutrality too.
I don't remember any censorship in past when internet was dialed-in.

The bandwidth throttling and filtering is supposed to stifle competition as it is easier/cheaper to apply one filter more then upgrade router or tower's appliance.

Airwaves are not unlimited and can x amount of high bandwidth connections. If they allow any traffic, airwaves would be eaten as if they were M&Ms in a theatre....

You are right. So what they can do is limit the per connection bandwidth and prioritize voice over other protocols. Those things would be allowed if they were made public.

They could rig it so that video streaming packets would go out on the air only after a phone call was allowed to "jump the queue".

But what AT&T really wants to the ability to limit (prohibit) you from using a competive service. They want to be the ONLY ones allowed to sell you content on their network.

Who provides the content is the key here. the concept of nuetrality maens AT&T sells only bandwidth (managed with a public prioritization system). They want more, they want to sell content too and lock outers out from selling it.

This can't be. You are stating:

AT&T says other's services will bug down the network because of x thing (Sling Player). OK
AT&T starts offering what they said was going bug down the network (Sling Player) OK

FCC says, you just said there wasn't enough bandwidth for X, why are you offering X named as Y?. Not OK.

So you see, AT&T isn't being anti-competitive, they are protecting voice and data protocols over their wireless networks.

[hob]

What happened to the rumoured plans of Google buying up the old Analogue TV spectrum to use for nationwide wireless internet?

[jav6454]

What happened to the rumoured plans of Google buying up the old Analogue TV spectrum to use for nationwide wireless internet?

Edit

Google tried to bid, but was truncated by Verizon. Google was after Block C

Block Big winner Total spent (approximate, across all blocks)

A
No clear winner

B
AT&T $6,636,658,000

C
Verizon Wireless $9,363,160,000
D
Qualcomm $472,042,000 (did not meet reserve)

E
Frontier Wireless $711,871,000

[danielwsmithee]

There is nothing in the now 6 principles of open internet that prevents AT&T from actively managing their network so that one person can not hog so much bandwidth that it causes problems.

This just requires them to be open about how they manage the bandwidth, i.e. publish what you are doing and do not discriminate based on the type of content. You can still throttle someone's connection if they are using too much bandwidth.

[jbernie]

As I use the internet alot I am mostly for neutrality, however given the companies own the networks they build and invest a lot of money building them I can see why they would want some control over how their network is being used (or abused).

Somewhere in the middle, probably more towards neutrality than not is the happy ground, part of any resolution would be that the carriers detail in full what types of services they are restricting and to what level.

Want to slow P2P transfers? Ok, but you need to document this in an easy to find location on your website, and not 50 layers down in some obscure documentation. If they are found to be blocking/controling access to a service or function without detailing it then they can be fined AND prevented from blocking that function for a year or so.

It isn't unfair for them to block services (or users) that are causing them network issues, but at the same time it is unfair to the consumer for the provider to with hold all information regarding the issues.

[mike1123]

I don't feel bad for AT&T at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the US not severely lacking in data speed and abundance compared to places like India, Japan, and Korea, along with the rest of the developed world? We should not be paying what we're paying for wireless services, cable television, and internet service. We're getting hosed as it is.

[slffl]

Ah it was so much easier for the wireless carriers under Bush. No wonder they gave him so much money.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Ah it was so much easier for the wireless carriers under Bush. No wonder they gave him so much money.

Great point, comrade! I agree, we all deserve everything for free! Why work? Let the rich pay for it!!! I see a bright future for lazy folks like us.

[javalizard]

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services," he said.

"perhaps the most competitive"? That's as true as "the recession is over" or "health care death panels" or "Bailing out the banks will trickle down to the people."

Wireless is an extreme oligopoly. I bet you or this AT&T liar can't name more than 8 wireless providers in the USA. They charge out the a$$ for text messages in the USA! Oligopoly is very close to monopoly. True competition would be 100+ cell phone companies with actual price differences, features, and services. Competition is where phone companies don't just take orders from the Whitehouse to implement warrentless wire(less) tapping because if they don't their radio spectrum/wireless/business licenses won't be authorized or expedited (thus inhibiting their growth and slowing down their profits). Competition would be awesome! I would totally support true competition in the wireless market. Alas, the lies... the lies. The big companies can only allow the illusion of competition (otherwise they'd have to give up their power and size). All the big companies want that illusion. True competition would actually put a dent in their bottom line, so they can't allow that.... so we are stuck with the illusions and the lies (oh, and the dropped calls, poor performance, expensive plans, limited coverage, slow speeds, etc, etc).

They deserve to be ephed. Net Neutrality is about democracy, not about the bottom line. How much do you want to bet the wireless industry is spending on lobbying our government to keep their bottom lines protected? Democracy is a higher order than profits. We truly don't spend enough money in this country to defend democracy from companies that spend excessive money to keep control of their government (it's not really your government any more, folks). It's a corporate welfare state.... It's actually fascism. Fascism is when corporations control the government. It's already the American brand of fascism. Read up on it.

Obviously, if AT&Ts network can't keep up with the usage demand, increase the price, decrease the speed in total, or use some other market based scheme. If users complain, so what, they'll switch networks. Oh... that's right. They don't like real competition. If more and more people sign up and start using such services, won't that give the companies plenty of cash to expand infrastructure? Stupid me, they're greedy mo'fo's who don't really care that you hate them as long as they're in an oligopoly and you'll get treated like crap by any "competing" wireless company. Resistance is futile.

The competition that exists in the wireless marketplace is an illusion at best and very nearly monopolistic at worst.

Net Neutrality should absolutely be applied to all internet capable devices, including wireless, because of democracy, equal access, and freedom of speech. Let true competition live.

[Tigger92]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

Actually...ATT specifically told me that 3G is shared on the same band for data and voice and Edge uses separate bands for voice and data.

By the way...I do think that net neutrality is needed...it will force carriers to update equipment and give better pricing in the end. I am also quite tired of ATT not being prepared for the data plans they like to get everyone to use.

[RazHyena]

Well for Verizon, voice goes on the 850 MHz band while data is on the 1900MHz band (or vice versa, can't remember which for sure)

Interesting. Wasn't aware of that.

I honestly don't know if AT&T is set up in a similar way...I'm just sick of the cliche AT&T bashing. ;)

[Richard1028]

How much would it cost the wireless carriers to enhance their infrastructure?

How much do a few execs at these companies make each year?As much as stockholders like you and me allow (by investing in their tech). It's a publicly owned company driven by investors.

Your comment is typical of this new "socialist order" sweeping the U.S. lately. And you have no idea what you're talking about unless somebody tells you how to think.

[rnizlek]

At first, I came in on AT&T's side of this. Wireless network bandwidth is limited. But then I gave it some thought - why should they regulate how you use your allocation of bandwidth? The way AT&T needs to solve this is realistic bandwidth caps, not offering "unlimited" service, which, by the way, isn't really unlimited. Who cares what you use your allocation for?

The only way doing away with net neutrality helps is by making the whole bandwidth-limiting process more opaque.

[NoExpectations]

There is simply not enough wireless bandwidth to go around.....not now and certainly not 5 and 10 years from now.

The FCC is going to force the Wireless Carriers to bill per usage (byte). This is the only way they are going to be able to ensure that there is enough BW available for the average user (for phone calls, email, and casual surfing).

I kind of like my unlimited data plan now.....it keeps life simple.

[aristotle]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.
What makes you think that means much when they are still going through the same tower. Regardless of whether they were on the same band, towers have a finite capacity which can be reached far more quickly in heavily populated areas of the US than in other countries.

[mambodancer]

The reason these companies are opposed to net neutrality is they do not want to invest their profits into upgrading their systems. Why else would they want to impose bandwidth caps, drag their feet on MMS and tethering, force you into bundled services, subsidize your phone, make you pay fees that amount to extortion when you want to break your contract? The fact is, they define high speed internet as 256K/sec or better. The don't want you to do VOIP or Video streaming because they are heavily invested in the old infrastructure and way of doing business.

They act like they own the internet to hear them talk and that any time "we" request a file it is delivered by virtue of "their" internet and infra-structure. Think about it for a moment. I watch a youtube video posted on a server in Japan. How many hops does it take to get to my screen? How many ISP's does it have to pass through? How many miles of ethernet cable, wifi connections, DSL lines, Coax, fiber, satellite and trans-oceanic cables do those bits travel through before that stream gets to my computer? Only a very small portion of that delivery service is owned, maintained and supported by...well, take your pick. Comcast, Cox, ATT, Qwest. And guess what? How much of that infra-structure is bought, paid for, or funded by the tax payer?

[kdarling]

To those who are saying that today's prices are outrageous...

A lot of us paid huge amounts per minute for 9Kbps wireless data at the beginning of this decade. Now we get close to 1Mbps all the time for $1 a day. It's pretty darned sweet.

Bandwidth is very limited, at least until we get into 4G.

And as someone else mentioned, we have to be careful what we ask for. If the carriers have to start charging different data amount tiers to make up for some people wanting to Sling all day, a lot of people will no longer be able to afford iPhone data charges.

[NoExpectations]

[INDENT]Wireless is an extreme oligopoly.

Perhaps. However, the price to enter this market is very, very high. Yes, we want more competition. However, if you want to start up a new wireless service to compete with the current marketplace, Billions and Billions will need to be invested. What company is going to risk and invest all this capitol to enter this market now that the FCC wants to impose rules and regulations that will limit profitability? No one will. Once again, the government is going to mandate rules in an attempt to fix an issue that will only result in creating a larger problem.

[lazyrighteye]

<rant removed by author>

[cmwade77]

I think net neutrality should apply to all internet connections, in addition, if a plan is marketed as "unlimited", then it should have to truly be unlimited with no caps. If the plan was marketed as unlimited when a user signed up for it, then it cannot be changed unless the user changes plans and you cannot drop that plan from the user until the user chooses to change it, in other words:

I signed up for an "unlimited" plan three years ago, now that company wants to eliminate the unlimited plan, well that's fine for new customers, but cannot be done for existing customers.

I believe this should be included in a Net Neutrality bill as well.

[NoExpectations]

Wireless is an extreme oligopoly.

Perhaps. However, the FCCs actions will only make matters worse. It will force the Wireless Carriers to handle more traffic than they are capable of supporting.....resulting in the growth and expense of the infrastructure.....causing a rise in the price of the service.

Oh....maybe the wireless carriers should do this without raising prices? Maybe they should just take a hit in their profits? Oh yeah, that will encourage a lot of new companies to expand into the wireless services sector and provide us with more competition. Yeah right.

[AlmostThere]

Perhaps. However, the price to enter this market is very, very high. Yes, we want more competition. However, if you want to start up a new wireless service to compete with the current marketplace, Billions and Billions will need to be invested. What company is going to risk and invest all this capitol to enter this market now that the FCC wants to impose rules and regulations that will limit profitability? No one will. Once again, the government is going to mandate rules in an attempt to fix an issue that will only result in creating a larger problem.

Who is going to start up a business online when you have to pay protection money to the network carriers to ensure that your application's traffic gets through?

You are simply proposing to stifle innovation by raising the barrier to entry for any online business (and that's most of them now).

Projects like Wikipedia can provide viable alternatives to commercial offerings and rely on net neutrality to compete, Google could never have gained a foothold against the likes of MSN.

This is not about overall bandwidth, overall bandwidth limit is a red herring here and nothing will change the fact that has to be shared.

What net neutrality is about is giving me the freedom to use my alloted (and paid for) bandwidth as I see fit, to communicate with whomever I choose, using any method I like. My provider is still free to throttle my usage as necessary to ensure equal performance for everybody.

If carriers want this level of control - explicitly stating what can go on their network, they can forgo the indemnity the currently receive for the material they transmit.

[logmonkey]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

Bravo, here-here and all that ;)

[kas23]

Perhaps. However, the FCCs actions will only make matters worse. It will force the Wireless Carriers to handle more traffic than they are capable of supporting.....resulting in the growth and expense of the infrastructure.....causing a rise in the price of the service.

Oh....maybe the wireless carriers should do this without raising prices? Maybe they should just take a hit in their profits? Oh yeah, that will encourage a lot of new companies to expand into the wireless services sector and provide us with more competition. Yeah right.

Maybe it's for the best. Using wireless data is the way of the future. In about 5-10 years, using wireless data on your phone is going to be just as commonplace as using the phone part. Wouldn't we want net neutrality for whats going to be such a basic function in the very near future? Sure, there may be tremendous growing pains and these companies may have to invest a lot more of their (would be) profit to better technology, but it'll be worth it in the long run.

[kironin]

Net neutrality should not matter whether wires or wireless...

"He argues that wireless networks differ from wireline broadband networks because bandwidth is more limited on a wireless network"


ATT pure BS, bandwidth will expand and evolve!
:mad:

[locovaca]

Net Neutrality should apply to all transportation mediums, including wireless. Wireless needs to be set up like DSL and Cable, where you pay for a maximum throughput and are capped at that.

If more people pay for higher throughputs, then companies have the money to upgrade their infrastructure to support those throughputs. If they fail to do so, consumers will simply move on to the another carrier who does keep up with their network. The free market dictates that net neutrality will work, and the attempts to derail it are attempts to remove the "free" from free market.

The arguments against net neutrality assume that ISPs have to eat the losses on people who abuse their connections. They do not, they simply need truthful advertising. Currently the advertisements are inaccurate at best and deceitful at worst in describing the service ("unlimited") you receive for the money you pay.

[kryptonianjorel]

There is simply not enough wireless bandwidth to go around.....not now and certainly not 5 and 10 years from now.

The FCC is going to force the Wireless Carriers to bill per usage (byte). This is the only way they are going to be able to ensure that there is enough BW available for the average user (for phone calls, email, and casual surfing).

I kind of like my unlimited data plan now.....it keeps life simple.

You pay per byte right now technically. You have a 5GB/Mo limit. lets assume your data plan costs $60/Mo, you pay $12 per GB. Compare that to my $60/Mo Comcast for 250 GB/Mo, which is $0.24 per GB.

Is the ability to have internet access anywhere* at dial-up speeds worth the 50 times premium?

*anywhere is determined by how much money your provider has decided to sink into their network


Net neutrality should help force the big 4 to invest in their networks and provide a better quality. AKA, they'll have to compete!!

However, right now, there's no reason to switch. The devil that you know is better than the devil that you don't

[xIGmanIx]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

its posts like this to me that stereotype Mac users as pinheads. Apparently the worlds foremost experts on all things technology subscribe to Macrumors. Without providing the data to speak to it otherwise, your just a tool of the other system.

[pmjoe]

[...]
The arguments against net neutrality assume that ISPs have to eat the losses on people who abuse their connections. They do not, they simply need truthful advertising. Currently the advertisements are inaccurate at best and deceitful at worst in describing the service ("unlimited") you receive for the money you pay.
You need to look up the definition of "net neutrality". Nothing you said has anything to do with it.

Edit: after reading more posts, you aren't the only one.

[pmjoe]

If AT&T wanted to argue against net neutrality for phone voice call data on wireless frequencies originally intended for that, I'd understand that position.

Unfortunately, their statements are intentionally vague, because that is not all they mean.

[jbernie]

And as someone else mentioned, we have to be careful what we ask for. If the carriers have to start charging different data amount tiers to make up for some people wanting to Sling all day, a lot of people will no longer be able to afford iPhone data charges.

Well..I think more of us would be more willing to accept the tier model if they had more tiers than just 1) almost nothing & 2) "unlimited".

AT&T does this with the text messaging tiers they offer, surely there is another tier they could somehow just manage to squeeze in between 200 & 1500 messages a month? Whats wrong with offering a tier for 1000? Oh thats right, it is better for them to get an extra $5 a month for a limit you can never reach than to offer a nice middle ground which allows your customers to not over pay for the service.

Comcast has their unlimited cable internet downloads capped at 250GB a month, which for me isn't really a big deal as I would be amazed if I got up anywhere near 50GB in any month. But that being said, I am sure some people who do lots of streaming movies via netflix and the like might have more to be concerned about.

[topspeeds]

If AT&T wanted to argue against net neutrality for phone voice call data on wireless frequencies originally intended for that, I'd understand that position.
http://methoo.com (http://methoo.com)

[javalizard]

Who is going to start up a business online when you have to pay protection money to the network carriers to ensure that your application's traffic gets through?

I couldn't agree more. It should be said that all, let me reiterate: ALL job growth is happening in small and medium sized businesses. LOL... The place where there is actual competition, i might add!!


if you want to start up a new wireless service to compete with the current marketplace, Billions and Billions will need to be invested

It should never have gotten to this point. The point where it is so damn expensive to have competition. That's one power of money. It spreads, it consolidates. It gains control at your loss.

maybe the wireless carriers should do this without raising prices? Maybe they should just take a hit in their profits? Oh yeah, that will encourage a lot of new companies to expand into the wireless services sector and provide us with more competition.

Let them raise prices. I highly doubt they'd really be able to raise prices if there were real competition in the market. We've mandated competition in the past. We broke up AT&T once. Why not again? LOL. I just realized how funny it is that we let it happen a second time! Besides that, you're really saying that greed and money should be able to control the government... that corporations should be able to control our government.

Ask not what your government can do for you... but what "your" government can do for the corporation.

Just FYI, I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a Republicrat. I am American. I believe in a competitive and well functioning economy and a strong democracy among people [both Democrats, Republicans, and all else] (not corporations). We have neither right now thanks to the Republicrats.

[muskratboy]

Let’s just hope these same ridiculous prices don’t affect LTE & WiMAX, too.

Yup, i'll bet they get CHEAPER. :rolleyes:

[retroneo]

If you get 5GB of data per month, you should be able to do anything you want with it. 5GB of data is 5GB of data.

If they now say they can't really offer 5GB, then they should advertise how much users really can use or charge differently for different sized data packages.

That's how we do it here in Australia.

[buckdutter]

Just an observation...

People in FAVOR of AT&T's stance: Here are the facts why it makes sense, and some science for you to digest.

People OPPOSED to AT&T's stance: WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (with a couple exceptions).

A couple things that bug me about about the non well-reasoned arguments...

1. AT&T does take in a lot of revenue, but it is not THAT much considering. They made what 6 or 7 billion dollars that year? But that is out of 150-160 billion in actual revenue. That is like 3-4% overhead. That is not much. They are accountable to shareholders, not geek fantasies about the many uses of broadband.

2. Current technology simply is not there to let people go wild (jav6454 does a good job pointing this out with some simple science).

3. A lot of people complaining about AT&T's stance are probably also complaining about AT&T's crappy service. You can't have both. It WOULD be nice, but right now you can't, and just wanting something is not enough to base a well reasoned argument on unfortunately.

4. Don't say "prove it" to someone when you yourself are offering no facts to support your argument that don't start with "I think".

5. Verizon having two bands for voice and data means you can use ONLY ONE at once. You are on the phone, DATA is OFF. This may change in the future, but honestly it will be awhile.

6. If you can't see the difference between a wired and a wireless network, you are an idiot.

When LTE is around I will change my tone, because that is a beast of a new kind. But that is in awhile, when it is out of its infancy...and people are actually connecting at home via router, etc. Right now, I want AT&T to improve their performance, and I understand they don't have an unlimited amount of money to pour into it. They are pouring more into their network over the next year than any other carrier (to my knowledge)...so here is to hoping things get better...and the FCC does not start pooping all over the place...at least not until it is a realistic possiblity.

[flpatriot]

Yup, i'll bet they get CHEAPER. :rolleyes:

I’m just figuring that between Moore’s law driving down the price of equipment, and the increased capacity and speeds available, it *might* be possible to get a fair deal.

Sprint is offerring Clearwire’s WiMAX service plus 5GB of data on their 3G network for only $79.99, which is $20 more than just 3G. From what I understand, LTE is even cheaper to deploy and offers better capacity & speed, so, there’s at least a tiny chance.

[Chimpy]

Shocker, AT&T takes issue with net neutrality.

[twoodcc]

well i can see AT&T's point. but i still think they need to work on expanding their network and bandwidth

[dgcaste]

"the most competitive consumer market"?

PLEASE

Last time I looked, oligopolies were anti-competitive

If it's so competitive, why are we all getting ****ed in the ass for two years in a row, forever?

[dgcaste]

Just an observation...

People in FAVOR of AT&T's stance: Here are the facts why it makes sense, and some science for you to digest.

People OPPOSED to AT&T's stance: WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (with a couple exceptions).

A couple things that bug me about about the non well-reasoned arguments...

1. AT&T does take in a lot of revenue, but it is not THAT much considering. They made what 6 or 7 billion dollars that year? But that is out of 150-160 billion in actual revenue. That is like 3-4% overhead. That is not much. They are accountable to shareholders, not geek fantasies about the many uses of broadband.

2. Current technology simply is not there to let people go wild (jav6454 does a good job pointing this out with some simple science).

3. A lot of people complaining about AT&T's stance are probably also complaining about AT&T's crappy service. You can't have both. It WOULD be nice, but right now you can't, and just wanting something is not enough to base a well reasoned argument on unfortunately.

4. Don't say "prove it" to someone when you yourself are offering no facts to support your argument that don't start with "I think".

5. Verizon having two bands for voice and data means you can use ONLY ONE at once. You are on the phone, DATA is OFF. This may change in the future, but honestly it will be awhile.

6. If you can't see the difference between a wired and a wireless network, you are an idiot.

When LTE is around I will change my tone, because that is a beast of a new kind. But that is in awhile, when it is out of its infancy...and people are actually connecting at home via router, etc. Right now, I want AT&T to improve their performance, and I understand they don't have an unlimited amount of money to pour into it. They are pouring more into their network over the next year than any other carrier (to my knowledge)...so here is to hoping things get better...and the FCC does not start pooping all over the place...at least not until it is a realistic possiblity.

From http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T&fstype=ii

During a quarter (3 year period to you nonfinancials)

Revenue: approx 30b
Net Income: approx 3b

that's more like 10%. also, revenues are 120b and profit is 12b over the course of the year. you're speaking of 'facts', but I don't see where you're getting yours.

EDIT: I'd like to specify that real economic profit is calculated in the difference between the company's profit and regular market return. if you had a billion dollars, would you invest in a market that returns 6% a year, or in a company that returns 10%? So that opportunity cost is calculated by taking the difference. Your economic profit would be 4%. If a company starts returning under market, then there's no reason for people to invest in it. AT&T is doing just fine, and are doing fine by their shareholders, plain and simple.

[schwell]

Well..I think more of us would be more willing to accept the tier model if they had more tiers than just 1) almost nothing & 2) "unlimited".

AT&T does this with the text messaging tiers they offer, surely there is another tier they could somehow just manage to squeeze in between 200 & 1500 messages a month? Whats wrong with offering a tier for 1000? Oh thats right, it is better for them to get an extra $5 a month for a limit you can never reach than to offer a nice middle ground which allows your customers to not over pay for the service.

Comcast has their unlimited cable internet downloads capped at 250GB a month, which for me isn't really a big deal as I would be amazed if I got up anywhere near 50GB in any month. But that being said, I am sure some people who do lots of streaming movies via netflix and the like might have more to be concerned about.

Unfortunately, many are not "happy" with anything unless they get it for free.

AT&T and Apple are corporations they answer to their stockholders. They cannot possibly make every customer happy with each product and pricing strategy.

I happen to be both a customer and a stockholder of AT&T and Apple so perhaps I have a different perspective.

[aristobrat]

Wireless is an extreme oligopoly. I bet you or this AT&T liar can't name more than 8 wireless providers in the USA. They charge out the a$$ for text messages in the USA! Oligopoly is very close to monopoly. True competition would be 100+ cell phone companies with actual price differences, features, and services.
If each market only has so many blocks of frequency, as mandated by the FCC, there can only be that many local competitors.

In my area, we have the following carriers. As I understand it, no new carrier can enter the area, unless they share the frequency with one of the existing ones.

on the two 850mhz bands:
Verizon
(used to be Alltel, but since they merged with VZW, not sure -- the FCC made Alltel give up some bands in some markets)

on the five 1900mhz bands:
AT&T
T-Mobile
Sprint
nTelos (Frawg)
Nextel

on the future 700mhz bands:
AT&T
Cox
Frontier Wireless

http://www.wirelessadvisor.com/ is a cool website if you want to see for sure which carrier is using which band in your area.

[danielwsmithee]

Just an observation...

People in FAVOR of AT&T's stance: Here are the facts why it makes sense, and some science for you to digest.

People OPPOSED to AT&T's stance: WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (with a couple exceptions).

A couple things that bug me about about the non well-reasoned arguments...
Your's is the argument that is not well-reasoned.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with network and bandwidth management, and you seem to be missing that point.

There is nothing in the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality rules that would keep AT&T from managing the bandwidth on their own network.

Would it would do is keep them from blocking traffic based on the type of traffic, i.e. it can't block access to google while allowing msn. AT&T would remain free to throttle back a user's bandwidth if they have exceeded quota or bandwidth cap.

[Mr. Gates]

Why is it , every time I hear ANYTHING about AT&T it is something lame.
These guys just seem to think " any publicity is good publicity "

I REALLY hope Apple chooses another company for that fabled Tablet

[zombitronic]

As much as stockholders like you and me allow (by investing in their tech). It's a publicly owned company driven by investors.

Your comment is typical of this new "socialist order" sweeping the U.S. lately. And you have no idea what you're talking about unless somebody tells you how to think.

Or as much as their profits allow. Funny, Apple didn't falter when their stock price was cut in half last year. They didn't complain that they couldn't produce more Macs and iPhones because the stockholders weren't helping them out.

Richard, you're the one who has no idea what they're talking about by throwing out labels like "socialist." That's been a popular and misinformed term used excessively instead of the term "rules." Have some more GOP-ade. Mmmm. While you're at it, go have a conversation with your friends and family from eastern Europe and then come talk to me about socialism.

[eastcoastsurfer]

Your's is the argument that is not well-reasoned.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with network and bandwidth management, and you seem to be missing that point.

There is nothing in the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality rules that would keep AT&T from managing the bandwidth on their own network.

Would it would do is keep them from blocking traffic based on the type of traffic, i.e. it can't block access to google while allowing msn. AT&T would remain free to throttle back a user's bandwidth if they have exceeded quota or bandwidth cap.

Finally someone who understands net neutrality. You are correct that it isn't about bandwidth, but about traffic. For example, it would prevent a powerhouse like Google from paying AT&T for a higher QoS over some other competitor. That's all. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, just that the bandwidth you're allotted you can do anything with.

See, the big ISP providers are all chomping at the bit to force companies like Google to pay twice. When you go to Google they want you to pay for your bandwidth, then Google to pay for YOUR bandwidth, and then Google to pay for the its bandwidth.

[Richard1028]

Or as much as their profits allow. Funny, Apple didn't falter when their stock price was cut in half last year. They didn't complain that they couldn't produce more Macs and iPhones because the stockholders weren't helping them out.You can't be serious?!?! Do you even own any Apple Stock? Do you know how this works?

LOL! You're done. Adios. Get educated on your own nickel my friend.

Have some more GOP-ade.Interesting how you loons immediately deduce somebody is a Republican when they don't agree with you. I've voted the Dem ticket since '75.

Hope you see this before the mod that's been stalking me deletes it. He/she seems to side with you as nobody else's posts get deleted.

[themoonisdown09]

What makes you think Data and voice are sharing the same bands ?

You're agreeing with AT&T without even knowing a thing about the technology. Good job on being a tool of the system.

So, how do you know that I don't know a thing about the technology? If you're going to try and insult me, you could at least have some data to prove me wrong.

[reckless2k2]

How much would it cost the wireless carriers to enhance their infrastructure?

How much do a few execs at these companies make each year?

How about we start with Actors/Actresses and or Professional Athletes first? They make a LOT more money than executives. I mean business executives are only ensuring the production and profitability (for reinvestment and for shareholders) of what have been deemed to be essential services anymore (wired, wireless, or even that evil gas). What are professionals doing between gigs and games doing? What are they doing while at "work"? Most "luck" into their profession versus executives that have the bills to prove all the education and credentials to get to running a business. It can be argued that the games aren't that good and everyone was complaining at the Emmy's that general ratings are down. Give me a break it's "always" the evil executives. Hippie.

You guys are looking at ALL of this all wrong. This was talked about a handful of years ago as a means for ISPs to beef up infrastructure on the backs of taxpayers. Hello...The "Federal" in FCC only means here comes the regulation which will translate into more tax at the front and back end. You've heard the talk......They will be too big to fail and the only reason they will be "failing" is because of all the "regulation" to be "fair".

Sing it with me.....Here comes some more tax hikes...oh yeah....Here they come along with an increase in price points of products and services.....oh yeah.

[reckless2k2]

removed...sorry.

[kingtj]

I agree with the poster, below, as far as his assertion that wireless bandwidth is fairly limited. A given carrier is only assigned a little sliver of the radio spectrum to broadcast on - so they have to do as much as possible within that limitation.

Really, this is why wi-fi technologies have sprouted up everywhere. If cellular data bandwidth for a carrier was effectively "unlimited", you can be sure people would rather just use it instead. It'd avoid issues like needing a signal booster for a Linksys router at home that "can't send a good signal to the machines in the basement", etc.

I've heard several people in the cellular industry explain, repeatedly, that they view cellular data services as more of an "extender" for your wired Internet connections, which make up the "bread and butter" of connectivity.

I'm not saying this to defend AT&T's poor signal quality or lack of infrastructure. I think we all know that they're "near the bottom of the barrel" in those areas. And yes, it's bad business for them to limit the use of applications on phones that all the other big carriers allow! But the whole "net neutrality" issue really came about to stop big ISPs from playing favorites with packets. It's not (currently, at least) so relevant for wireless providers, except maybe satellite broadband providers, who generally charge based on usage above a pre-paid monthly "cap" or "package" anyway.


Do any of you know the dynamics of a wireless spectrum to be even talking and saying "screw AT&T's wireless"?

Believe me when I tell you, waves in the wireless sector IS NOT UNLIMITED. You will eventually run out of 850MHz connections by trying to cram as many data or voice transfers as possible. So, even though the infrastructure might support it in theory, in real world, it wouldn't work, plain and simple. (not unless you know how to send super fast data in 1 Hertz frequencies instead of 2-10 KHertz frequencies)

In this case, I have to agree with AT&T. Oh, and if you are wondering, simple, Physics and Electric Engineering goes a long way in these things.

[aristobrat]

How much would it cost the wireless carriers to enhance their infrastructure?
As a point of reference, AT&T spent $38 billion dollars in service enhancements in 2007 and 2008, and plans on spending $17-$18 billion dollars in 2009. Billions, with a b. And their network STILL has major issues handling *current* traffic loads (in some areas). :eek:

How much do a few execs at these companies make each year?
The CEO of the wireless part of AT&T makes $6.1 million a year (total compensation).
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=T.N&officerId=1056809

What's amazing to me is that if you figure the average iPhone customer pays AT&T $100/month, the $18 billion that AT&T is spending for 2009 upgrades represents every penny that they will collect from 15 million iPhone customers (in 2009). I don't even think that they have 15 million iPhone customers?!

I wonder if AT&T knew that when they agreed to the iPhone, that virtually all of the money would be funneled into network upgrades? I don't see at all where they are profiting on this deal, unless they'd be paying out of pocket for these network upgrades that the iPhone customers seem to be bankrolling for them?

[eastcoastsurfer]

Go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) and read first before making anymore comments.

Some key quotes:

<blockquote>
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
</blockquote>

Read that over and over until you understand it. It has nothing to do with forcing companies to increase infrastructure or anything else. All it says is that if you pay for a connection and someone else pays for a connection how you interact over that connection is none of the ISPs business.

ISPs are generally against net neutrality because they look at a company like Google and their profits and they want some of it. They think by forcing Google to pay them for a higher QoS they can skim from Google. The problem is that Google can and would pay, and that shuts out any other start up search engines. If Google had entered the world in that environment they would never have become what they were because MSN, Yahoo, etc... would have already been paying the extortion tax to the ISPs to get preferential traffic treatment.

IMHO, anyone who is against net neutrality either doesn't understand what it is (most people in this thread) or has a financial interests in skimming off the likes of Google, Hulu, etc...

[CharBroiled20s]

I actually have to agree with AT&T on the point that wireless networks don't have the same bandwidth as wired networks.

I want to be able to make a phone call on my iPhone without having problems because people are streaming TV to their phones and are hogging all the bandwidth.

You're foolish to think that this extension applies only to the mobile phone arena.

In fact, this legislation extends the same basic freedom to browse EVERY site at equal speed with equal availability to end users connected by satellite uplinks, WiMAX connections, cellular internet connections and whatever else becomes available 20 years from now. People connected through wireless networks are not afforded the same rights that wired users take for granted.

This legislation is necessary to ensure the continued availability of all websites - not just the sites AT&T deems profitable on their network (or anyone's network for that matter). Internet content ambiguity is of paramount importance here - not the quality (or lack there of) of AT&T's network.

This legislation is broad; just as legislation should be. It does not single out any specific technology and thus protects the whole.

All users are afforded the same level of protection when "fair play" legislation like this is passed. Wireless carriers would be subject to the same fair use and availability laws as wired ISP's. This isn't a matter of the wireless companies being singled out or their networks compromised! It's simply an inclusion of wireless carriers in the existing law.

AT&T seems to fear legislation that prohibits them from limiting the speed or availability of sites that directly compete with their offerings in the wireless arena. HUGE SHOCK! It also prohibits AT&T from playing favorites with companies paying them for the privilege of reaching their user base. This is not a bad thing.

Fair availability of all internet sites is not a privilege, it is an expectation and legislation confirming that expectation is not bad, anti-competitive or network crippling.

You shouldn't limit your view to any one sector of business when the legislation affects all forms of wireless technologies equally for ANY company that employs wireless internet content.

Most reasonable people see this as a step forward... Why do you oppose again?

[CharBroiled20s]

Go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) and read first before making anymore comments.

Some key quotes:

<blockquote>
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
</blockquote>

Read that over and over until you understand it. It has nothing to do with forcing companies to increase infrastructure or anything else. All it says is that if you pay for a connection and someone else pays for a connection how you interact over that connection is none of the ISPs business.

ISPs are generally against net neutrality because they look at a company like Google and their profits and they want some of it. They think by forcing Google to pay them for a higher QoS they can skim from Google. The problem is that Google can and would pay, and that shuts out any other start up search engines. If Google had entered the world in that environment they would never have become what they were because MSN, Yahoo, etc... would have already been paying the extortion tax to the ISPs to get preferential traffic treatment.

IMHO, anyone who is against net neutrality either doesn't understand what it is (most people in this thread) or has a financial interests in skimming off the likes of Google, Hulu, etc...

YOU'RE EXACTLY, COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY DEAD ON.

ANYONE ARGUING AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY IS ARGUING SOLELY FOR THEIR PROFIT MARGIN.

IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

[CharBroiled20s]

If you get 5GB of data per month, you should be able to do anything you want with it. 5GB of data is 5GB of data.

If they now say they can't really offer 5GB, then they should advertise how much users really can use or charge differently for different sized data packages.

That's how we do it here in Australia.


AT&T says 5gb is unlimited (I think) because they couldn't offer 5gb to anyone in a billing cycle... So it really is unlimited... because 5gb is a pipe dream... a crack pipe dream...

HEHEHEE.... :p

[SeaFox]

AT&T isn't being anti-competitive, they are protecting voice and data protocols over their wireless networks.
The cellphone industry doesn't care anything about providing good voice service. :p The fact most cell phones do a poor job of making phone calls (from a sound quality and reception standpoint) and that AT&T doesn't already prioritize voice packets on their network (otherwise you wouldn't have these issues making calls in high smartphone usage areas) is proof enough of that.

Their revenue plan continues to be one of charging people for stuff that is essentially free for them to provide (texting), charge people for access to stuff that is free on the Net (access to streaming media), and charge people for upgrading their phone (************ "activation fees" on GSM handset upgrades, upgrade fees + contract extensions on new phones).